Boy A film

 Number 569 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2007 British drama 'Boy A.'

Jack Burridge (Andrew Garfield) is a young man with a troubled past. Released from prison after a long sentence, he desperately tries to go straight with the help of his social worker Terry (Peter Mullan.)

Boy A was a gritty social drama based on the book of the same name by Jonathan Trigell. It has been compared to the horrific James Bulger murder and, indeed, Trigell was inspired by the resulting media frenzy. The comparisons were clear to see: there are two troubled pre-teens Jack Burridge and his deeply problematic friend Philip Craig (Taylor Doherty.) The two commit and awful crime (more on this in a  bit.) Ten years later, Jack is released into society.

Andrew Garfield played Jack in his debut film role and while he was rough around the edges, you could see the glimmers of the film star he would go onto become. Jack spent his adolescence in prison. Upon release, he is naturally shy and socially awkward. Garfield played the role with grace making Jack endearing despite his secret, dark past. Despite everything that happened, he wants to do better and atone for his crimes.

Equally good was Peter Mullen as social worker Terry. Everybody knows that social work is a thankless job and it's common for social workers to burn out and give up. Yet Terry never gives up on Jack. No matter how hard it gets. Peter Mullen stopped Terry from being just another beaten-down social worker.

Yet a lot of this was undone in the film's final act. Spoilers to follow. Flashbacks throughout the film hint to why Jack spent his adolescence in prison. The true reason is revealed to be he and Philip murdering and possibly assaulting a fellow school-girl  - although it isn't revealed who did what. I had grown to like Jack, but then it's released that he possibly killed a little girl. It feels a bit gross to have rooted for a character like that now.

We don't see Philip in Jack's adult life as it's revealed he died in jail - whether by his own hand or another is up for debate. However, what we know for certain is that Jack and Philip were best friends. I was expecting the troublemaker Philip to be attacked or killed and Jack to take revenge in a crime of passion. This would have been a somewhat justifiable motive. Not the murder of a little girl.

The weak ending aside, Boy A was a good film with a strong debut from Andrew Garfield.

Dirty Harry Review

 Number 479 on the top 1000 films of all time is Don Siegel's 1971 action-thriller 'Dirty Harry.'

Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood) is a San Fransican cop who doesn't play by the rules. He's dirty, but he always gets the job done. However, he meets his match with the psychotic and deadly intelligent "Scorpio" killer - Charles Davis (Andrew Robinson.)

Clint Eastwood has remarkable talent.  I am not referring to his directional ability netting him numerous Oscars, but his talent is starring in great films despite always playing the same character. And that character is a grumpy old man regardless of his age or if he is playing a cowboy, boxing coach or cop. Although this is the first film I've seen with Clint Eastwood playing a rogue cop, he wasn't unlike any of the famous cowboy characters who proceeded him. Not to say he wasn't good, but he wasn't different either.

Andrew Robinson was far more convincing as the psychopathic Scorpio killer. Despite being a complete unknown, he play the role so brilliantly that he struggled in escaping the shadow of the character. Thankfully, he did in the nineties, as he went onto have a prominent supporting role in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

It was an interesting dynamic between the two lead actors with Eastwood acting as the old hand and Andrew Robinson, the newcomer, but he held his own well in this slick and punchy thriller. It was another triumph from Don Siegel who gave us another tense and tight film.

Yes, it has Eastwood acting the same as he always does, but don't let that put you off what was a great film with a terrific turn from Andrew Robinson.

Sling Blade review

 Number 288 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1996 drama 'Sling Blade.'

*Spoilers to follow*

Karl Childers (Billy Bob Thornton) is a developmentally-disabled man who has just been released from a psychiatric institution where he has been held since he was twelve years old. His crime? Murdering his mother and her lover with a sling blade. Thoroughly institutionalised, Karl struggles to adapt to his new life in Arkansas. That is until he befriends the twelve-year-old Frank (Lucas Black) and his mother Linda (Natalie Canerday) But her abusive boyfriend Doyle (Dwight Yokam) soon takes a disliking to Karl. As well as starring, Billy Bob Thornton also wrote, produced and directed Sling Blade.

Billy Bob Thornton won an Osar for writing Sling Blade. However, he was only nominate for acting and not even considered for direction. I think that's a good summary of the film: the acting and direction didn't match up to the Oscar-winning writing.

This isn't to say that Thornton did a bad job, but it certainly wasn't Oscar-worthy. Karl's journey was a predictable one. While predictability isn't a bad thing, Thornton did fail to bring anything new to the medium. Karl - having been institutionalised for most of his life struggles in adapting to life on the outside. He quickly comes to loggerheads with Doyle resulting in Karl murdering him. 

Yes, this was predictable, but a predictable ending can still be good if it was executed well. But this ending was disappointing and anti-climatic. There was too much build-up leading to a damp squib instead of a bang. We get a seemingly-endless montage of Karl preparing to kill Doyle with the latter meekly accepting his fate. It was a sequence devoid of tension.

I also think Thornton's portrayal of Karl was over-simplified. It didn't have the same depth as portrayals of similar characters of the era e.g Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump. whereas Gump was a living, breathing three-dimensional character, Karl was little more than a grunting cave man.

I can understand why Thornton won the Best Writing Oscar. Sling Blade certainly had a good story. It's just a shame that the direction and acting didn't match up to the writing.

The Name of the Rose review

 Number 506 on the top 1000 films of all time is the mystery historical drama 'The Name of the Rose.'

Set in a 14th century Benedictine Abbey in Northern Italy, Franciscan friar William of Baskeville (Sean Connery) arrives with his novice Adso (Christian Slater) to discover a gruesome murder has taken place. When William begins investigating, more murders start happening. F. Murray Abraham and Ron Perlman co-star.

At its heart, this was a who-dunnit in a historical setting. William and Adso were stand-ins for Sherlock and Dr Watson with William even saying "it's elementary." Who-dunnits should be gripping thrillers brimming with tension, but I was bored for most of the film.

Neither Connery or Slater were great in the lead roles. Connery was playing himself and Slater was playing a wet blanket of a character. This was only Slater's second film role. He wasn't great, giving a lifeless and dull performance. It didn't help that his character was an audience proxy, providing exposition where necessary, and where it wasn't necessary too, except for the weird moment where the village girl sleeps with him, because of... reasons. This love story was a big subplot, but it wasn't convincing at all. As William rightly points out, Adso is confusing lust with love.

The Name of the Rose was also excruciatingly slow. Much of the film focussed on singing monks and church politics. I get this is set in an abbey, but it didn't make for the most entertaining of cinema. By the time, we had meandered to the film's conclusion, I had all but lost interest.

The Name of the Rose was a plodding affair, devoid of dramatic tension or interesting characters. A while ago I wrote an article about films that could put you to sleep. If I were to write another one, the Name of the Rose would surely take the top place.

Memories of Murder review

 Number 213 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Bong Jong-Hoo's 2003 South Korean neo-noir crime thriller 'Memories of Murder.'

Park Doo-man (Song Kang-ho) and Kim Roi-ha (Cho Yong-koo) are police detectives in 1986 Hwaseong who are investigating a string of grisly rapes and murders. They are soon joined by the Seoul hotshot Seo Tae-yoon (Kim Sang-kyung.)

This was a convincing thriller. It was tense, gripping with plenty of plot-twists along the way. Granted it was complicated and convoluted at times, but as such is the nature with these films. Bong makes great use of the weather and music to really up the tension. There were great sequences like when the detectives chase a suspect through the backstreets of Hwaseong.

As is common for thrillers, many of the key scenes took place at night and in the pouring rain, which certainly built the suspense. And one of the biggest clues that cracks the case is a radio song that is always requested to play while the murders take place.

However, there was something stopping me from really engaging with it and that was the interpersonal dynamics between Park, Kim and Seo. Their constant unprofessionalism and squabbling really got on my nerves after a while. I get it. Park and Kim are resentful of having an outsider come help them. They neither want or need their help, but for the greater good they must work together. It is quickly implied that Park and Kim are out of their depths. Their small police department doesn't have the resources or funds to successfully complete this investigation.

But their constant in-fighting made them seem incredibly amateurish. I had no confidence that they would find the true killer especially when they resort to beating confessions out of their suspects. I get that they're from the school of flawed, psychologically-damaged, rough-around-the-edges, willing to break the rules to get the job done, police detectives, but it was all too much. They weren't very likeable and I wasn't too bothered if they would successfully apprehend the killer. Rather than catching the killer, they just get even more people killed like their initial suspect.

And *spoilers*

they don't. Despite having three key suspects, including the most likely candidate Park Hyeon-gu, the case remains frustratingly unsolved. Having the killer escape was refreshing to see. In many thrillers, it's expected that after some ordeals and struggles, the cops would eventually catch the murderer and everything would wrap up nicely. Maybe not with a pretty pink bow, but nicely enough. However, that isn't the case here. And I quite liked this ending. It felt painfully realistic. Sadly, in real life, many murders do go unsolved, because the killers are never caught. They do escape.

Despite the rather unlikeable main characters, I still think Memories of Murder is worth a watch. It's a gripping thriller with a refreshing ending.

The Talented Mr Ripley review

Number 985 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1999 psychological thriller 'The Talented Mr Ripley.'

Tom Ripley (Matt Damon) is sent from New York to Italy to bring the spoiled playboy Dickie Greenleaf (Jude Law) back home. However, this seemingly simple task proves to be much more difficult than originally foretold, and soon takes a dark turn. Gwyneth Paltrow plays Greenleaf's girlfriend Marge Sherwood and Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Greenleaf's best friend Freddie Miles.

This was a very convincing thriller. It was tense, gripping and had high suspense throughout. But it was also marked by such a great subtext. Although it wasn't directly addressed, I wonder, in Ripley's attempts to convince Greenleaf to return home, he starts to fall in love with him. Greenleaf is your run-of-the-mill playboy - charismatic, playful, but incredibly spoiled. Jude Law brought a brilliant chaotic energy to the role. 

Matt Damon was equally good as Ripley. This film came out in '99, so this was before Damon had really made a name for himself. But you could see his potential. This subtext gave the film a completely different layer. Maybe I'm reading too much into it - I don't know whether this was intentional or not, but it really worked.

Damon played Ripley very well. I think it would be overly-simplistic to describe Ripley as a psychopathic serial killer. He is a far more nuanced character than that. And Damon brought this nuance to the fore. I don't think Ripley necessarily causes bad situations to happen, but, rather, he positions himself to best take advantage of these situations. And that's what made him such an interesting character.

I also very much enjoyed Philip Seymour Hoffman. He is good in everything he does, and this film was no exception. Freddie Miles absolutely despises Tom Ripley and Hoffman plays this contempt with aplomb. He is sleazy, arrogant and nasty. RIP Hoffman. He was an actor taken from us far too soon.

The Talented Mr Ripley was a great thriller with some convincing performances. Hoffman might have just been playing a supporting character, but he surely stole the show.

We Need to Talk about Kevin review

 Number 809 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2011 psychological thriller 'We Need to talk about Kevin.'

Franklin (John C Reilly) and Eva (Tilda Swinton) are parents to the deeply troubled Kevin (Ezra Miller.) However, Kevin only shows his dark side around his mother. As he grows older and his acts become more disturbing, his mother wanders how much she is to blame for the sins of her son.

In this film, director Lynne Ramsay tries to tackle the age-old question of nature vs nurture. Is evil innate within us all? Or is it the product of our environments? There is a case to be made for both, picking from a wide range of examples across history. In the case of Kevin, I think he was born evil. Yes, we see that he was an accident and his mother didn't really want him, but he also wasn't abused or neglected as a child. His father dotes on him and his mother tries her best to form a relationship with him, only to be constantly rebuffed.

This makes Eva all the more of a tragic character. And Tilda Swinton plays her very sympathetically. It's all too easy for parents to blame themselves for the failings of their children. Are there obvious signs you're too blind to see? John C. Reilly was also good as Franklin. He might primarily be known as a comedy actor, but he can also do the drama well.

As for Ezra Miller, Kevin is as dodgy here as Ezra Miller is in real life. Sure they were good as the sarcastic, laconic, psychopathic son, but I don't think they were anything special. They didn't bring anything new to the role.

Nonetheless, this was still a stylish thriller with a distinctive look that leaves you with plenty to think about. Nature or nurture? Let me know your answer in the comments below.

Primal Fear review

 Number 615 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1996 legal thriller 'Primal Fear.'

Martin Vail (Richard Gere) is an arrogant Chicago lawyer who is well-known for taking high-profile cases, because of the publicity they generate. That's why he takes the case of Aaron Stampler (Edward Norton) - a simple-minded 19-year-old former altar boy accused of murdering the beloved Archbishop Rushman - head of Chicago's diocese. However, Vail slowly starts to prove that Aaron is innocent. And he has to prove that in court against the prosecution led by former flame Janet Venable (Laura Linney.)

Based on the 1993 book of the same name, Primal Fear was good enough. That is to say that it is as good as legal dramas go. Legal dramas have a tendency to be overlong with too much talking and exposition. By their very nature, not a lot happens outside of a courtroom, so they're not always the most interesting to watch. And if it wasn't for Ed Norton, I don't think I would have found this film very entertaining. This was his feature-film debut and he received widespread praise for it. I may argue that he was better than Gere and Linney.

I don't think either actor was particularly bad in isolation, but I don't think they were great together. I especially didn't like the plotpoint of them having a past relationship. Vail still has feelings for Venable and tries rekindling the relationship, but is constantly rejected. It all seemed very contrived and forced to me. Gere and Linney didn't have the best on-screen chemistry. And it wasn't believable that the two of them used to be romantically involved. True, it was an obvious source of conflict, but I don't think it worked. Their shared past was left too unexplained and enigmatic. 

To Vail, their relationship was something serious, but Venable thought it was a one-night stand that happened to last for six months. Perhaps if their relationship had been left more professional, I would have enjoyed it more. Instead of romantic feelings, one of them could have done something to have professionally screwed over the other. And that would have been a better explanation for Venable's resentment for her former colleague.

And I didn't particularly like Linney's character. This is no fault of the actress, but I think that Janet Venable was overly-cold, harsh and condescending. She's not supposed to be the devil, but the devil's advocate. There were moments where she could have been portrayed sympathetically, but any of these emotional beats fell flat on their face. 

Like I said, if it wasn't for Ed Norton, I think this entire film could have fallen flat on its face. *spoiler alert* It is initially revealed that he is schizophrenic - he has an alternate personality called Roy who surfaces whenever Aaron is felt threatened. Instead of Aaron who always denied killing Archbishop Rushman, it was actually Roy. Roy and Aaron are polar opposites to each other. Aaron is shy, simple-minded and speaks with a stutter. Whereas, Roy is arrogant, violent and a sociopath. They are completely different, but Ed Norton played the double-role with aplomb. He was convincing as both characters.

Ed Norton was very much the saving grace of this film. It fell short of its massive potential. It wasn't bad, but it also wasn't good. 

Dial M for Murder review

 Number 178 on the top 1000 films of all time is Alfred Hitchcock's murder mystery Dial M for Murder.

Tony Wendice (Ray Milland) suspects his wife Margot (Grace Kelly) is having an affair with American Mark Halliday (Robert Cummings.) When his suspicions prove true, he plots to have her killed so he can inherit her fortune.

Hitchcock was famously known as the 'Master of Suspense,' and his skills came to the fore in this delightful movie. This is a deceptively simple film with a limited cast and only one or two sets, yet the tension is always high. Mr Wendice is a devious character evidenced by how he blackmails Captain Lesgate (Anthony Dawson) into murdering his wife. And Ray Milland did well to make such a despicable character interesting and charismatic. Although one could argue that the film leant into an excess of exposition at times, the overly talky scenes still brimmed with tension.

However, I think the film's greatest strength was also its greatest weakness. Perhaps it was too simple. Maybe I've been spoiled by all of today's complicated crime dramas, but I was expecting more from the police investigation. Sure there was a great dramatic irony in us knowing that Wendice was plotting to kill his wife while the police were clueless, but maybe that's because the police didn't do the most thorough of investigations. Wendice may have wiped clean most of his fingerprints with his encounter with Lesgate, but he still touched the silk stockings that he used as planted evidence with his bare hands. Maybe I'm being overly critical. Fingerprinting might not have had the importance it does now.

But what did puzzle me was the final act. After Margot is sentenced for Lesgate's murder, Chief Inspector Hubbard (John Williams) returns to the crime scene to conduct his own investigation. He then listens to Wendice and Halliday suggest their own theories. And I don't believe that any chief inspector would even consider entertaining such crazy ideas.

Finally, the backdrops for the exterior shots in Maida Vale were so obviously backdrops. I know this was the fifties, but come on.

Overall, I did enjoy this film. Sure it wasn't always the most believable, but it had a delicious dramatic irony that kept me engrossed throughout.

Review for M

So number 62 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1931 German drama-thriller M.

Set in Berlin, Germany, Hans Beckert, (Peter Lorre) a peadophile and child killer is on the prowl.  After the police are unable to stop him, the citizens led by crime bosses band together.

This film is a great exploration of mob psychology and vigilante justice.  After it becomes obvious that the police aren't going to do anything, the people take the law into their own hands.  There is something poetical in how it is crime bosses who are leading the charge in catching this killer, as if they are any better than him.  Although their motivations for doing so make sense.  They want to stop this killer, as he is driving away business.  To catch him, they use the city's homeless population is used.

When a blind beggar recognises the familiar whistle of Hans Beckert, the people take him to stand trail at a Kangaroo Court that is strongly biased against him.  The jury are the townspeople and the judges are the criminal bosses.  However, despite this, Beckert still receives a defence lawyer.  This is where the film's best scene takes place.  Beckert gives an impassioned speech claiming that he was not conscious of his killings; something inside of him made him do it.  

From here the lawyer argues that Beckert is criminally insane and should therefore be sent to hospital instead of prison or being executed.  This touches upon the incredibly sensitive and hotly-debated issue of mental illness and crime.  If somebody is insane, are they really aware of that they're doing? Or is something deeper compelling them to do it? I'm not claiming to provide an answer, but the way this film engages with this theme is one of its driving forces.

Despite the power of the last scene, I did not enjoy the film, as much as I thought I would.  It flitted about a lot from scene to scene and the characters weren't as memorable, as they could have been.  Even as I am writing this review, I'm having trouble remembering the names of any of the characters. There seemed to be a distinct lack of a main character.

This notwithstanding, the film is still a fascinating examination of the human psyche.  It becomes even more poignant with the recent case of Anders Breivik who was denied the status of criminally insane.  If he had been declared insane though, would this have excused the deaths of seventy-seven people? I'll leave you to think about that.